Orthodoxy is very clear anmd makes no secret of it - Catholics and Anglicans, and all other Christian Churches, will need to bring their faith into line with the orthoodx faith, 100%. Then we may unify. Nobody needs to submit to anybody. But the faith we hold must be one and the same.

So, in your opinion, could or would anything change in the Orthodox Church if such a reunion ever took place?

Yes, our doom and gloom and weeping over the loss of the West would turn to rejoicing.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."

Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...

With regards to Roman Catholics what can we say of them except: We are your past and we are your future.

You were never our past. I've listened for years about how the west was NEVER really and truly partakers of the same faith. Since the time of the Cappadocians at least we've been going off on our own way, etc. etc....and the final break was too long in coming according to many. So you can't sell me that back of tricks. Orthodoxy is not the Catholic past at all, according to Orthodoxy...and that is more than likely true the more I see and hear.

And you are our future only if your hierarchs agree to resume communion.

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...so you can stand there and flex but you can't go very fast or far by denying that.

Yes. SS. Photios, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, heros of the Vatican.

We've stayed put. So we have gone neither fast nor far. Your Vatican after Vatican II has both gone far and fast to.....

Not only have we not gone to hell, we've grown and the papacy has not withered, and there's been a very clear internal assessment of Petrine Primacy. Much has changed from the centuries of the "bad" popes, and under some very unpleasant circumstances. And the changes have been for the better.

SS. Photios and Mark of Ephesus would have a better reception among their brother priests, bishops and monastics in the Catholic Church then any Catholic saint would receive among the Orthodox.

[As I have noted in the past: We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

Your dismal outlook is depressing. Despite differences over issues such as contraception and divorce, there is much more around which we can unite and speak of to Western Europe.

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"? When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of? The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day? Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican? Please, let's touch reality for a moment! I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders. Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide. Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.

I have a realistic outlook on our "shared" moral teachings. They are not shared...at the moment. Some may share them but many do not.

I say an occasional rosary with a group of Muslim women in the area. They are an interesting mix of beliefs and attitudes. Some of them will go with me to the monthly NFP meetings that are held in the area. There are several sets of couples per parish who have started cells of couples who are using NFP to either space children or to assist them to conceive. They are also pretty traditional in the rest of their Catholic practice as well. There's a very positive response from the Muslim women.

I think you need to get out more and meet more faithful Catholics. Perhaps you don't meet many because you simply don't have time and don't really believe they exist.

At any rate, one cannot separate moral teaching from doctrinal teaching either so if you think we are heretics then I expect that you'd be honest enough to realize we have no grace in our sacraments, we have no real spiritual lives as a corollary...and so we really have no moral grounds to stand on either.

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.

BTW your stats on NFP usage are skewed ...or your understanding of them are faulty...something.

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

I fear that this may be true. It's heartbreaking to watch the EO Church as it falls away from the Apostolic faith with regard to birth control. Will it continue to spiral away from moral truth as the Anglican Church has? I hope not. I hope that the EOC's apostolic succession and valid sacraments will gaurd them from error. But if such things have not provided them from protection from error on the matter of ABC, then how much longer will they maintain Apostolic Succession?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

I fear that this may be true. It's heartbreaking to watch the EO Church as it falls away from the Apostolic faith with regard to birth control. Will it continue to spiral away from moral truth as the Anglican Church has? I hope not. I hope that the EOC's apostolic succession and valid sacraments will gaurd them from error. But if such things have not provided them from protection from error on the matter of ABC, then how much longer will they maintain Apostolic Succession?

Perhaps the Eastern Orthodox veering away from the ancient faith would be a blessing in disguise. The Anglican Communion has been becoming more and more liberal as time goes on, and now look what is happening. Traditional Anglican parishes are joining the Catholic Church left and right. Should Orthodoxy as a whole ever become liberal and depart from the Apostolic faith, there would still be countless Orthodox who would be devout and disagree with the changes. That would essentially leave them with two options: Oriental Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...

With regards to Roman Catholics what can we say of them except: We are your past and we are your future.

You were never our past.

The Apostles Peter and Paul and SS. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp etc. were never in Rome? Interesting.

Quote

I've listened for years about how the west was NEVER really and truly partakers of the same faith. Since the time of the Cappadocians at least we've been going off on our own way, etc. etc....and the final break was too long in coming according to many. So you can't sell me that back of tricks. Orthodoxy is not the Catholic past at all, according to Orthodoxy...and that is more than likely true the more I see and hear.

And you are our future only if your hierarchs agree to resume communion.

That's your choice.

Quote

Otherwise you are what you are now to us

we don't care what we are to you. It neither determines our being nor guides us. Why are you so obsessed with us?

Quote

...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

Now THERE's some doom and gloom

Well, let's see: since you went your seperate ways in the 12th century, you had this:Good thing the strong arm of the Spanish, Portuguese and French kings came to your aid to enforce your creed and spread it across the world. Otherwise you would be very gloomy in Western Europe.

What we received from the Apostles we stand fast and hold firm until Christ come to reclaim it.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 01:10:05 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

we don't care what we are to you. It neither determines our being nor guides us. Why are you so obsessed with us?

Are we really obsessed with you guys though? Of course, myself as well as other Catholics on this forum have an interest in Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) or else we would not be here, but I certainly agree with what Mary said earlier: to the majority of Catholics, Orthodoxy does not even exist. She made another good point, which is that you rarely see Eastern Orthodoxy brought up in Catholic apologetic texts, but Catholicism is mentioned in Eastern Orthodox apologetics all the time (and on Orthodox forums, hence this thread and many others). For whatever reason, you guys have felt it necessary to define your theology on how you are different than Roman Catholics. We do not do this. Our catechism is not littered with things like "Eastern Orthodoxy believes x, which is clearly wrong and why the Catholic Church believes y." We simply state our beliefs. It is a bit telling that you always have to put us down rather than just simply stating your beliefs. Is it, perhaps, because you realize we are in a race and you are losing, and you are being critical and mocking of us as a vain attempt to regain the numbers you once had?

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

I fear that this may be true. It's heartbreaking to watch the EO Church as it falls away from the Apostolic faith with regard to birth control. Will it continue to spiral away from moral truth as the Anglican Church has? I hope not. I hope that the EOC's apostolic succession and valid sacraments will gaurd them from error. But if such things have not provided them from protection from error on the matter of ABC, then how much longer will they maintain Apostolic Succession?

Perhaps the Eastern Orthodox veering away from the ancient faith would be a blessing in disguise. The Anglican Communion has been becoming more and more liberal as time goes on, and now look what is happening. Traditional Anglican parishes are joining the Catholic Church left and right. Should Orthodoxy as a whole ever become liberal and depart from the Apostolic faith, there would still be countless Orthodox who would be devout and disagree with the changes. That would essentially leave them with two options: Oriental Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

That's pretty good!! Now you are starting to frame the discussion so they sound like the flip side of Father Ambrose...I am not sure you really want to perfect that technique!!

I honestly do not think things are all that gloomy in Eastern Orthodoxy. None of us can rest on roses...thorns maybe, but not a soft bed of petals...

I am hoping that the Russian Church tightens things up a bit in their formal teaching, and leaves the ABC to pastoral wisdom, making it the last resort and not the first.

I've listened for years about how the west was NEVER really and truly partakers of the same faith. Since the time of the Cappadocians at least we've been going off on our own way, etc. etc....and the final break was too long in coming according to many. So you can't sell me that back of tricks. Orthodoxy is not the Catholic past at all, according to Orthodoxy...and that is more than likely true the more I see and hear.

And you are our future only if your hierarchs agree to resume communion.

That's your choice.

The doors are open. The choice actually belongs to Orthodoxy. The Catholic Church has chosen.

1. It is good to have Catholics to be able to correct errors in this kind of public venue, and to better learn the differences between the two confessions.

2. It is also my hope that, should we resume communion in my lifetime, I will be in a position to help Catholics understand why there's nothing in Orthodoxy that needs to be altered, nothing that is not fully faithful to revealed truth.

There used to be a third reason only it's been knocked out of me I expect to find it again before I die...I'd better!

There is also a great deal of good to be learned here about Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as the particular Churches and national Churches. And also I find myself appreciating the moderators more and more. This is a tough grouping to keep going in good grace. I am impressed....on moderation of course... ...but impressed for all that!

we don't care what we are to you. It neither determines our being nor guides us. Why are you so obsessed with us?

Are we really obsessed with you guys though? Of course, myself as well as other Catholics on this forum have an interest in Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) or else we would not be here, but I certainly agree with what Mary said earlier: to the majority of Catholics, Orthodoxy does not even exist. She made another good point, which is that you rarely see Eastern Orthodoxy brought up in Catholic apologetic texts, but Catholicism is mentioned in Eastern Orthodox apologetics all the time (and on Orthodox forums, hence this thread and many others). For whatever reason, you guys have felt it necessary to define your theology on how you are different than Roman Catholics. We do not do this. Our catechism is not littered with things like "Eastern Orthodoxy believes x, which is clearly wrong and why the Catholic Church believes y." We simply state our beliefs. It is a bit telling that you always have to put us down rather than just simply stating your beliefs. Is it, perhaps, because you realize we are in a race and you are losing, and you are being critical and mocking of us as a vain attempt to regain the numbers you once had?

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

1. I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit. They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods. They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.2. I hope you've noticed that we also have sections devoted to comparing and contrasting Protestantism and Orthodoxy and to comparing and contrasting other Christian traditions with Orthodoxy, so don't think we're just picking on you.3. When you're numerically an almost invisible communion in all those traditionally Protestant and Catholic countries outside of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, you're constantly being compared by non-Orthodox to the dominant traditions. This reality kinda forces us to define ourselves in terms of what Catholicism and Protestantism are not. I'd be willing to bet you'd be forced to do the same if you were to bring your Latin Rite Catholicism to Russia.

we don't care what we are to you. It neither determines our being nor guides us. Why are you so obsessed with us?

Are we really obsessed with you guys though? Of course, myself as well as other Catholics on this forum have an interest in Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) or else we would not be here, but I certainly agree with what Mary said earlier: to the majority of Catholics, Orthodoxy does not even exist. She made another good point, which is that you rarely see Eastern Orthodoxy brought up in Catholic apologetic texts, but Catholicism is mentioned in Eastern Orthodox apologetics all the time (and on Orthodox forums, hence this thread and many others). For whatever reason, you guys have felt it necessary to define your theology on how you are different than Roman Catholics. We do not do this. Our catechism is not littered with things like "Eastern Orthodoxy believes x, which is clearly wrong and why the Catholic Church believes y." We simply state our beliefs. It is a bit telling that you always have to put us down rather than just simply stating your beliefs. Is it, perhaps, because you realize we are in a race and you are losing, and you are being critical and mocking of us as a vain attempt to regain the numbers you once had?

Yeah, THAT's it!!! LOL.

Odd for someone who concedes the arguments to the Muslims and advocates outbreeding them instead. Captive audience.

Besides the obvious (Crusades etc..) let's take, say, the exchange between Pope Pius IX of Rome and the Patriarchs of the East. The Patriarchs summarize nicely:

Quote

In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold. In this Encyclical, he addresses those who at different times have gone over from different Christian Communions, and embraced the Papacy, and of course are favorable to him, extending his arguments also to the Orthodox, either particularly or without naming them; and, citing our divine and holy Fathers (p. 3, 1.14-18; p. 4, 1.19; p. 9, 1.6; and pp. 17, 23), he manifestly calumniates them and us their successors and descendants: them, as if they admitted readily the Papal commands and rescripts without question because issuing from the Popes is undoubted arbiters of the Catholic Church; us, as unfaithful to their examples (for thus he trespasses on the Fold committed to us by God), as severed from our Fathers, as careless of our sacred trusts, and of the soul's salvation of our spiritual children. Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne."

Depending on what you read in, your view of obsession may be skewed. In Russia, Greek, Serbian, even Arabic, Orthodox wrting by and large doesn't bother with the Vatican. In English, the Vatican has far more communicants than the Orthodox do in that language, and they keep on saying we are the same and should "reuturn to this throne." Hence the need to state (but not define) our theology as different from the Vatican's. That's badk enough, but, as the letter shows, the Vatican insists on sending us unsolicited correspondence we do not need. No one requested the letter from the Vatican, and no one asked for it to be translated into Greek to be "disseminated like a plague from without."

Things haven't changed: we'd prefer if you would say in your catechism about the differences. Go the source:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htmAnd you can get the Compendium in Russian, Romanian and even Belarusian. But not Polish: are there so few followers of the Vatican in Poland that they do not need it? No Ukrainian, although their largest "sui juris" organization speaks it (I'm aware the Ukis are making their own, but you'd think in 2 decades someone could have gotten around to it. I mean, they even bothered with Swedish). Within a year of the CCC coming out, it was translated and available in Romanian, although 90% of the population belong to their Orhtodox Church, and most of the communicants of the Vatican in Romania don't historically speak Romanian (being Hungarians or Germans). English, with nearly 100x the number of communicants than those in Romania, let alone Romanian speaking (and more so, of the Latin rite), had to wait a few years.

So to save the unwary, things have to be written in Russian (who have a compendium of the CCC but no hiearchy: there's no need), Greek (IIRC they have a bishop, for the remnants of Italian occupation), Romanian, even Arabic on the Vatican's views:

Quote

Each one of our brethren and sons in Christ who have been piously brought up and instructed, wisely regarding the wisdom given him from God, will decide that the words of the present Bishop of Rome, like those of his schismatical predecessors, are not words of peace, as he affirms (p. 7,1., and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement, agreeably to the practice of his antisynodical predecessors. We are therefore sure, that even as heretofore, so hereafter the Orthodox will not be beguiled. For the word of our LORD is sure (John x. 5), A stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

3. When you're numerically an almost invisible communion in all those traditionally Protestant and Catholic countries outside of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, you're constantly being compared by non-Orthodox to the dominant traditions. This reality kinda forces us to define ourselves in terms of what Catholicism and Protestantism are not. I'd be willing to bet you'd be forced to do the same if you were to bring your Latin Rite Catholicism to Russia.

I was going to give a go at arguing with you about this but there's a chance you have a point here so I'll do something else with it.

Orthodoxy's size is a great gift. It allows you an ecclesiastical intimacy that is lost to the Catholic Church and particularly lost since we have, in general, lost the habit of being in close contact with our monastics and religious. That's a centuries long process but it has done us spiritual harm, and the burgeoning of third order Carmelites and Dominicans and Benedictines is a great blessing!!

But back to you and Orthodoxy and size.

I had a dear friend in my mid-life who came up about to my elbow without her high heels on and when we'd be cooking together or some other activity, I'd turn around and loose her, and always had to be careful not to poke her in the nose with my elbow.

However, when she and I were working on professional projects and out in the world of hard knocks and heavy competition, she had a marvelous presence that made her stand at least as tall as I stood, if not taller!

And that is my personal sense of Orthodoxy.

She may be small but I would never be ashamed to face the world, the flesh and the devil with her by my side!!

That is the third reason I stay here, but I loose track of it on occasion, just as I used to loose track of my dear darling old friend in the kitchen.

1. I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit. They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods. They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.

I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me. In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago. I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.

Of course we are always pleased to hear the voices of other Churches and it would be good if Greeks and OCA people were to speak up. Do you agree with the Russian Orthodox? Do you have differing teachings?

Some folks in Orthodoxy are actually aware that your patrimony is also the patrimony of the Catholic Church...

With regards to Roman Catholics what can we say of them except: We are your past and we are your future.

You were never our past. I've listened for years about how the west was NEVER really and truly partakers of the same faith. Since the time of the Cappadocians at least we've been going off on our own way, etc. etc....and the final break was too long in coming according to many. So you can't sell me that back of tricks. Orthodoxy is not the Catholic past at all, according to Orthodoxy...and that is more than likely true the more I see and hear.

And you are our future only if your hierarchs agree to resume communion.

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

Now THERE's some doom and gloom

The Church survives the doom and gloom because the gates of hell will never prevail.

The gates of hell have thrown many forces against the Church - those of militant Islam, militant Catholicism and militant atheistic Communism. All have failed to destroy us. "God is with us, understand ye nations and submit yourselves, for God is with us."

[As I have noted in the past: We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

Your dismal outlook is depressing. Despite differences over issues such as contraception and divorce, there is much more around which we can unite and speak of to Western Europe.

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"? When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of? The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day? Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican? Please, let's touch reality for a moment! I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders. Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide. Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.

I have a realistic outlook on our "shared" moral teachings. They are not shared...at the moment. Some may share them but many do not.

I say an occasional rosary with a group of Muslim women in the area. They are an interesting mix of beliefs and attitudes. Some of them will go with me to the monthly NFP meetings that are held in the area. There are several sets of couples per parish who have started cells of couples who are using NFP to either space children or to assist them to conceive. They are also pretty traditional in the rest of their Catholic practice as well. There's a very positive response from the Muslim women.

I think you need to get out more and meet more faithful Catholics. Perhaps you don't meet many because you simply don't have time and don't really believe they exist.

At any rate, one cannot separate moral teaching from doctrinal teaching either so if you think we are heretics then I expect that you'd be honest enough to realize we have no grace in our sacraments, we have no real spiritual lives as a corollary...and so we really have no moral grounds to stand on either.

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.

Such throw-away remarks tend to inflate the ego but they do not correspond with reality. Is Pope Benedict guilty of being "content with nominalism" when he is keen for our two Churches to work together in Western Europe?

Otherwise you are what you are now to us...and even that will fade in time and fall away with disuse and the eventual loss of Apostolic succession on doctrinal and moral grounds.

I fear that this may be true. It's heartbreaking to watch the EO Church as it falls away from the Apostolic faith with regard to birth control. Will it continue to spiral away from moral truth as the Anglican Church has? I hope not. I hope that the EOC's apostolic succession and valid sacraments will gaurd them from error. But if such things have not provided them from protection from error on the matter of ABC, then how much longer will they maintain Apostolic Succession?

[It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

The largest Catholic forum in the world, CAF, used to have such a section for many years. They abolished it because too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

1. I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit. They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods. They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.

I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me. In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago. I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.

That's not the root of what I said about you. What I said is that you don't represent the majority of Orthodox here on this forum. It's not so much the substance of what you say as it is the manner in which you say it. Your apologetic methodology is very different from what most of us here practice the majority of the time.

1. I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit. They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods. They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.

I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me. In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago. I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.

That's not the root of what I said about you. What I said is that you don't represent the majority of Orthodox here on this forum. It's not so much the substance of what you say as it is the manner in which you say it. Your apologetic methodology is very different from what most of us here practice the majority of the time.

Than God you have clarified. Some of us had the impression that you were accusing Irish Hermit of not truly representing the Orthodox faith.

Your own methods are unique and are known to confuse many of our forum members. The manner in which you say things can be rather hurtful and other members feel ill at ease and "put down." I have seen members complain on this score. I don't know if I do that myself?

1. I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit. They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods. They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.

I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me. In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago. I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.

That's not the root of what I said about you. What I said is that you don't represent the majority of Orthodox here on this forum. It's not so much the substance of what you say as it is the manner in which you say it. Your apologetic methodology is very different from what most of us here practice the majority of the time.

Than God you have clarified. Some of us had the impression that you were accusing Irish Hermit of not truly representing the Orthodox faith.

Your own methods are unique and are known to confuse many of our forum members. The manner in which you say things can be rather hurtful and other members feel ill at ease and "put down." I have seen members complain on this score. I don't know if I do that myself?

In all fairness, Father, the only thing I have took issue with as far as your conduct on the forum is your unwillingness to listen to us Catholics when we try to explain what we actually believe.

As far as ialmisry, he seems to be in love with the idea that being Eastern Orthodox makes him superior to everyone else and how off-base and misled everyone else is, which is hardly the attitude to have. I believe that I have the fullness of truth as a Catholic Christian, but I certainly do not feel smug about it nor do I feel like mocking everyone who doesn't think as I do. That is hardly what Christ would want. Indeed, that haughty attitude is exactly one of the things that led me away from Protestantism and to Catholicism in the first place. Many Protestants act so arrogant. They act as if their interpretation of their truncated Bibles is absolute truth. I could never stand that, nor did I believe it. What I saw in Catholicism was humbleness and humility. I think many Protestants think that Catholics don't know their faith simply because you usually will not hear a Catholic engage in debate with a Protestant. I came to realize that this is not because Catholics don't know their faith, but rather that Catholics are content with remaining silent and turning the other cheek as they are trashed and mocked.

1. I hope you're not basing your judgment of Orthodox apologetics solely on your experiences with ialmisry and Irish Hermit. They're certainly our two most vocal posters, but they represent their own opinions, biases, experiences, and methods. They certainly don't represent the majority of Orthodox here.

I don't know whom you represent in the Orthodox world, Peter, but I must contest what you are saying about me. In this thread on birth control I faithfully represent the teachings of the 220 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church as they formulated it at the Millennial Synod 10 years ago. I have emphasised more than once that what I write is *not* my opinion but the teaching of the Russian bishops.

That's not the root of what I said about you. What I said is that you don't represent the majority of Orthodox here on this forum. It's not so much the substance of what you say as it is the manner in which you say it. Your apologetic methodology is very different from what most of us here practice the majority of the time.

Than God you have clarified. Some of us had the impression that you were accusing Irish Hermit of not truly representing the Orthodox faith.

Your own methods are unique and are known to confuse many of our forum members. The manner in which you say things can be rather hurtful and other members feel ill at ease and "put down." I have seen members complain on this score. I don't know if I do that myself?

In all fairness, Father, the only thing I have took issue with as far as your conduct on the forum is your unwillingness to listen to us Catholics when we try to explain what we actually believe.

As far as ialmisry, he seems to be in love with the idea that being Eastern Orthodox makes him superior to everyone else and how off-base and misled everyone else is, which is hardly the attitude to have. I believe that I have the fullness of truth as a Catholic Christian, but I certainly do not feel smug about it nor do I feel like mocking everyone who doesn't think as I do. That is hardly what Christ would want. Indeed, that haughty attitude is exactly one of the things that led me away from Protestantism and to Catholicism in the first place. Many Protestants act so arrogant. They act as if their interpretation of their truncated Bibles is absolute truth. I could never stand that, nor did I believe it. What I saw in Catholicism was humbleness and humility. I think many Protestants think that Catholics don't know their faith simply because you usually will not hear a Catholic engage in debate with a Protestant. I came to realize that this is not because Catholics don't know their faith, but rather that Catholics are content with remaining silent and turning the other cheek as they are trashed and mocked.

Sometimes communications on the internet may give a wrong impression as to what the person is trying to say. It has happened to me a few times. Face to face communications are oftentimes better.

Are we really obsessed with you guys though? Of course, myself as well as other Catholics on this forum have an interest in Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) or else we would not be here, but I certainly agree with what Mary said earlier: to the majority of Catholics, Orthodoxy does not even exist. She made another good point, which is that you rarely see Eastern Orthodoxy brought up in Catholic apologetic texts, but Catholicism is mentioned in Eastern Orthodox apologetics all the time (and on Orthodox forums, hence this thread and many others). For whatever reason, you guys have felt it necessary to define your theology on how you are different than Roman Catholics. We do not do this. Our catechism is not littered with things like "Eastern Orthodoxy believes x, which is clearly wrong and why the Catholic Church believes y." We simply state our beliefs. It is a bit telling that you always have to put us down rather than just simply stating your beliefs. Is it, perhaps, because you realize we are in a race and you are losing, and you are being critical and mocking of us as a vain attempt to regain the numbers you once had?

It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

If my brother and sister Orthodox agree, I am happy to self impose a moratorium on discussions with Catholics. This would allow our conversations to focus more on Orthodox teachings and eliminate the contention which arises through Catholic participation.

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Abstinence when the wife is fertile rather than any day of the week as long as she is on contraceptives. I can't be any more blunt than that. Also, wouldn't you agree that most contraceptives take a toll on a woman's body and health within time? So how is that being open to life? Might as well take up smoking as well. I do think we have to look at the whole spectrum.

So it is more than just the intent of the couple to prevent conception.

I am sure your priest can explain it thouroughly.

My inner circle of Roman Catholic priests would be more likely to fudge the issue and say that the matter is for the conscience of the married couple, for the internal forum (forum conscientiae.)

The latest instructions from the Vatican on how to deal with spouses who commit contraceptive acts in good faith soften the previous severity. The teaching remains intact, but in the confessional the conscience of the faithful must be respected

[It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

The largest Catholic forum in the world, CAF, used to have such a section for many years. They abolished it because too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

I don't think we saw much of a dip in overall increase in new catechumen and candidates world wide, Father. Sometimes having people go where they are most comfortable spiritually and intellectually is a very good thing. It is a rare time when I am sorry to see people go into Orthodoxy. There is constant motion among individuals and groups trying to find a religious space that is the best for the salvation of their souls. I think it is something quite natural.

[As I have noted in the past: We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

Your dismal outlook is depressing. Despite differences over issues such as contraception and divorce, there is much more around which we can unite and speak of to Western Europe.

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"? When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of? The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day? Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican? Please, let's touch reality for a moment! I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders. Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide. Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.

I have a realistic outlook on our "shared" moral teachings. They are not shared...at the moment. Some may share them but many do not.

I say an occasional rosary with a group of Muslim women in the area. They are an interesting mix of beliefs and attitudes. Some of them will go with me to the monthly NFP meetings that are held in the area. There are several sets of couples per parish who have started cells of couples who are using NFP to either space children or to assist them to conceive. They are also pretty traditional in the rest of their Catholic practice as well. There's a very positive response from the Muslim women.

I think you need to get out more and meet more faithful Catholics. Perhaps you don't meet many because you simply don't have time and don't really believe they exist.

At any rate, one cannot separate moral teaching from doctrinal teaching either so if you think we are heretics then I expect that you'd be honest enough to realize we have no grace in our sacraments, we have no real spiritual lives as a corollary...and so we really have no moral grounds to stand on either.

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.

Such throw-away remarks tend to inflate the ego but they do not correspond with reality. Is Pope Benedict guilty of being "content with nominalism" when he is keen for our two Churches to work together in Western Europe?

It was not intended as a toss-off at all.

In fact, some months ago you were a twitchit over the fact that Pope Benedict noted that he was pleased to see that second marriages in Orthodoxy were penitential unions and not fully sacramental.

He's a smart fellow so I don't think he was playing games with that remark. I think he was sending a very pointed message.

And it may have slipped your notice but he's not rushing to respond to the remark made that he and the Moscow Patriarch think alike on issues of morality.

In fact, he's not rushing to claim any moral unity at all, at this point.

There's a reason for that. It isn't there yet. Would surprise me very much if there was a formal agreed statement in the near future. That would not be taken lightly on the part of the Vatican...Pope Benedict in particular. He tends to be a stickler for accuracy when he gets the chance.

[It is clear who truly has an obsession with the other, and it is not us. I am a member of two different Catholic forums and neither one of them have a section of the forum specifically for comparing and contrasting Catholicism and Orthodoxy as this forum does. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that you guys are so hung up on us be we, as a whole, don't pay much attention to you?

The largest Catholic forum in the world, CAF, used to have such a section for many years. They abolished it because too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

I don't think we saw much of a dip in overall increase in new catechumen and candidates world wide, Father. Sometimes having people go where they are most comfortable spiritually and intellectually is a very good thing. It is a rare time when I am sorry to see people go into Orthodoxy. There is constant motion among individuals and groups trying to find a religious space that is the best for the salvation of their souls. I think it is something quite natural.

M.

Unfortunately the CAF authorities did not see it in your way and they banned most of the Orthodox posters and removed nearly all our posts.... quite a loss since some of the posts, going back several years, amounted to small monographs on some topics. Much valuable information was destroyed, and it was done overnight so that nobody had any chance to save their postings. They even thought of the Google caches of CAF messages and saw to it that these also were rendered inaccessible. It was a thoroughgoing piece of work indeed.

[As I have noted in the past: We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

Your dismal outlook is depressing. Despite differences over issues such as contraception and divorce, there is much more around which we can unite and speak of to Western Europe.

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"? When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of? The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day? Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican? Please, let's touch reality for a moment! I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders. Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide. Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.

I have a realistic outlook on our "shared" moral teachings. They are not shared...at the moment. Some may share them but many do not.

I say an occasional rosary with a group of Muslim women in the area. They are an interesting mix of beliefs and attitudes. Some of them will go with me to the monthly NFP meetings that are held in the area. There are several sets of couples per parish who have started cells of couples who are using NFP to either space children or to assist them to conceive. They are also pretty traditional in the rest of their Catholic practice as well. There's a very positive response from the Muslim women.

I think you need to get out more and meet more faithful Catholics. Perhaps you don't meet many because you simply don't have time and don't really believe they exist.

At any rate, one cannot separate moral teaching from doctrinal teaching either so if you think we are heretics then I expect that you'd be honest enough to realize we have no grace in our sacraments, we have no real spiritual lives as a corollary...and so we really have no moral grounds to stand on either.

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.

Such throw-away remarks tend to inflate the ego but they do not correspond with reality. Is Pope Benedict guilty of being "content with nominalism" when he is keen for our two Churches to work together in Western Europe?

It was not intended as a toss-off at all.

In fact, some months ago you were a twitchit over the fact that Pope Benedict noted that he was pleased to see that second marriages in Orthodoxy were penitential unions and not fully sacramental.

He's a smart fellow so I don't think he was playing games with that remark. I think he was sending a very pointed message.[/size

I wasn't atwitchet (like the word though) because when we get down to it I don't care very much about the Pope of Rome spreading disinformation on Orthodoxy. Either he is ignorant of the nature of Orthodox second marriages or he was being disingenuous and playing to his Catholic audience, perhaps attempting to gloss over the differences.

As for a "pointed message" the message received by the Orthodox was, as I have said, Benedict is ignorant of our matrimonial theology or he does know and, for purposes of his own, was being dishonest.

And it may have slipped your notice but he's not rushing to respond to the remark made that he and the Moscow Patriarch think alike on issues of morality.

In fact, he's not rushing to claim any moral unity at all, at this point.

There's a reason for that. It isn't there yet. Would surprise me very much if there was a formal agreed statement in the near future. That would not be taken lightly on the part of the Vatican...Pope Benedict in particular. He tends to be a stickler for accuracy when he gets the chance.

[As I have noted in the past: We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

Your dismal outlook is depressing. Despite differences over issues such as contraception and divorce, there is much more around which we can unite and speak of to Western Europe.

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"? When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of? The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day? Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican? Please, let's touch reality for a moment! I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders. Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide. Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.

I have a realistic outlook on our "shared" moral teachings. They are not shared...at the moment. Some may share them but many do not.

I say an occasional rosary with a group of Muslim women in the area. They are an interesting mix of beliefs and attitudes. Some of them will go with me to the monthly NFP meetings that are held in the area. There are several sets of couples per parish who have started cells of couples who are using NFP to either space children or to assist them to conceive. They are also pretty traditional in the rest of their Catholic practice as well. There's a very positive response from the Muslim women.

I think you need to get out more and meet more faithful Catholics. Perhaps you don't meet many because you simply don't have time and don't really believe they exist.

At any rate, one cannot separate moral teaching from doctrinal teaching either so if you think we are heretics then I expect that you'd be honest enough to realize we have no grace in our sacraments, we have no real spiritual lives as a corollary...and so we really have no moral grounds to stand on either.

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.

Such throw-away remarks tend to inflate the ego but they do not correspond with reality. Is Pope Benedict guilty of being "content with nominalism" when he is keen for our two Churches to work together in Western Europe?

It was not intended as a toss-off at all.

In fact, some months ago you were a twitchit over the fact that Pope Benedict noted that he was pleased to see that second marriages in Orthodoxy were penitential unions and not fully sacramental.

He's a smart fellow so I don't think he was playing games with that remark. I think he was sending a very pointed message.[/size

I wasn't atwitchet (like the word though) because when we get down to it I don't care very much about the Pope of Rome spreading disinformation on Orthodoxy. Either he is ignorant of the nature of Orthodox second marriages or he was being disingenuous and playing to his Catholic audience, perhaps attempting to gloss over the differences.

As for a "pointed message" the message received by the Orthodox was, as I have said, Benedict is ignorant of our matrimonial theology or he does know and, for purposes of his own, was being dishonest.

BTW: Twitchet is feminine. Twitchit is masculine. One soft, the other sharp...heh!

The point is that some Orthodox are more in line with Rome's moral precepts and some are not. So there is, at the moment, no way to devise a formal and shared teaching.

At one time I remember to getting pretty shrill over the fact that I noted that there are still times, and places where the crowns are withheld in second marriages in Orthodoxy, or some penance is imposed....all these things depending on pastoral determinations. There are SOME Orthodox shepherds who will willingly admit that second marriages are penitential in nature, ascetic in character depending upon the behaviors of one or both of the couples.

But as long as there is no clear statement or willingness to make a clear statement that second marriages are not the same as first marriages, then there's no grounds for presenting a unified face to the world.

Was it in Cyprus this year that the Church said that they will not recognize civil divorce? That the couple must also take their case through a Church tribunal of some sort?

It is that sort of thing that will make it much more clear that divorce should never be the norm, nor taken for granted.

There's a wonderful ecumenical group of pastors here where I am who have organized themselves and dedicated a portion of their time in ministry to saving marriages that are on the rocks...very proactive. I am deeply impressed by them and their blessed project. That is also the sort of thing one would expect to see and hear coming from some agreed statement about the sanctity of marriage.

Over the years I've worked with about 20 couples on the rocks who are still struggling, still married in the face of some personal distresses that are severe but not threatening to life and limb, and they are together on principle and in faith, still love one another though there are times when they loathe the presence of the other. And as they age, and as they mature, some very good things are happening, in their lives personally and in the communities in which they live and worship on account of their faithfulness.

I NEVER hear you talk about those kinds of things. All you do is mock the Catholic Church's practices of annulment, and talk about how happy you are to facilitate second marriages. So what am I to conclude. You can get pretty shrill now and then.

But you are right about one thing, when it comes to morality and its expression, and how we present to the world....Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church are often divided by a fairly deep chasm, at least in the terms in which you present things.

[As I have noted in the past: We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

Your dismal outlook is depressing. Despite differences over issues such as contraception and divorce, there is much more around which we can unite and speak of to Western Europe.

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"? When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of? The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day? Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican? Please, let's touch reality for a moment! I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders. Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide. Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.

I have a realistic outlook on our "shared" moral teachings. They are not shared...at the moment. Some may share them but many do not.

I say an occasional rosary with a group of Muslim women in the area. They are an interesting mix of beliefs and attitudes. Some of them will go with me to the monthly NFP meetings that are held in the area. There are several sets of couples per parish who have started cells of couples who are using NFP to either space children or to assist them to conceive. They are also pretty traditional in the rest of their Catholic practice as well. There's a very positive response from the Muslim women.

I think you need to get out more and meet more faithful Catholics. Perhaps you don't meet many because you simply don't have time and don't really believe they exist.

At any rate, one cannot separate moral teaching from doctrinal teaching either so if you think we are heretics then I expect that you'd be honest enough to realize we have no grace in our sacraments, we have no real spiritual lives as a corollary...and so we really have no moral grounds to stand on either.

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.

Such throw-away remarks tend to inflate the ego but they do not correspond with reality. Is Pope Benedict guilty of being "content with nominalism" when he is keen for our two Churches to work together in Western Europe?

It was not intended as a toss-off at all.

In fact, some months ago you were a twitchit over the fact that Pope Benedict noted that he was pleased to see that second marriages in Orthodoxy were penitential unions and not fully sacramental.

He's a smart fellow so I don't think he was playing games with that remark. I think he was sending a very pointed message.[/size

I wasn't atwitchet (like the word though) because when we get down to it I don't care very much about the Pope of Rome spreading disinformation on Orthodoxy. Either he is ignorant of the nature of Orthodox second marriages or he was being disingenuous and playing to his Catholic audience, perhaps attempting to gloss over the differences.

As for a "pointed message" the message received by the Orthodox was, as I have said, Benedict is ignorant of our matrimonial theology or he does know and, for purposes of his own, was being dishonest.

BTW: Twitchet is feminine. Twitchit is masculine. One soft, the other sharp...heh!

The point is that some Orthodox are more in line with Rome's moral precepts and some are not. So there is, at the moment, no way to devise a formal and shared teaching.

At one time I remember to getting pretty shrill over the fact that I noted that there are still times, and places where the crowns are withheld in second marriages in Orthodoxy, or some penance is imposed....all these things depending on pastoral determinations. There are SOME Orthodox shepherds who will willingly admit that second marriages are penitential in nature, ascetic in character depending upon the behaviors of one or both of the couples.

But as long as there is no clear statement or willingness to make a clear statement that second marriages are not the same as first marriages, then there's no grounds for presenting a unified face to the world.

Was it in Cyprus this year that the Church said that they will not recognize civil divorce? That the couple must also take their case through a Church tribunal of some sort?

It is that sort of thing that will make it much more clear that divorce should never be the norm, nor taken for granted.

There's a wonderful ecumenical group of pastors here where I am who have organized themselves and dedicated a portion of their time in ministry to saving marriages that are on the rocks...very proactive. I am deeply impressed by them and their blessed project. That is also the sort of thing one would expect to see and hear coming from some agreed statement about the sanctity of marriage.

Over the years I've worked with about 20 couples on the rocks who are still struggling, still married in the face of some personal distresses that are severe but not threatening to life and limb, and they are together on principle and in faith, still love one another though there are times when they loathe the presence of the other. And as they age, and as they mature, some very good things are happening, in their lives personally and in the communities in which they live and worship on account of their faithfulness.

I NEVER hear you talk about those kinds of things. All you do is mock the Catholic Church's practices of annulment, and talk about how happy you are to facilitate second marriages. So what am I to conclude. You can get pretty shrill now and then.

But you are right about one thing, when it comes to morality and its expression, and how we present to the world....Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church are often divided by a fairly deep chasm, at least in the terms in which you present things.

M.

The answer to all your rationalising and surmising and misrepresentations above about Orthodox second marriages can be easily given.

Take in your hand the Service Book and read the Rite of Second Crowning.

It is all there - all the theology clearly expressed.

This answer has already been provided to you previously in another thread.____P.S.: If you wish to discuss it further you could resurrect the thread and not derail this one.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods, and far, far better than coitus interruptus. The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Not that you don't realize this, but this most likely cart-horse. NFP requires actual communication, honesty, thoughtfulness in an area of inter-personal relations where it is often most lacking.

I can only imagine a couple with that degree of rapport about their sex life would have a rather healthy intimacy in most other areas of their relationship.FWIW.

Yes, if they don't such honesty they either get it or they don't or get pregnant, which brings pressure on a situation for which, not wanting children obviously at that time, they are not prepared.

Children used to be an incentive to stay together, now with the divorce industry they are incentive for divorce (much of the industry depends on children to justify their existence: "family" i.e. divorce litigation now is like a third of the law case load now.

Which brings up the question of a couple who do not want children, ever, and use "NFP" with its superior track record, to make sure they do not. Such couples exist. They of course would boost the numbers of those NFP couples with the 0% divorce rate, but hardly make the Vatican's argument for "being open for life."

That one can use other forms of birth control (and coitus during infertile periods cannot be said to be more natural than coitus interruptus), without communicating at all with the partner helps raise their divorce rates. but that's a sympton, not a cause.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Look, this NFP vs. ABC issue is being made much more complicated than is necessary.NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.

NFP does not violate this principle, because it is the nature of sex not to produce children during the non-fertile periods.

ABC is a violation of this natural law principal, because it purposely frustrates the nature of sex during fertile periods.

On the other hand, NFP does not frustrate the prupose of sex.There is nothing contrary to natural law about abstaining from sex for certain periods. But when one does engage in sex, one must not purposely frustrate its prupose: procreation during the fertile periods.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 01:26:27 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

It is the perspective Humanae Vitae set up.

Quote

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

Also, wouldn't you agree that most contraceptives take a toll on a woman's body and health within time?

Condons don't as far as I can see. Perhaps not diaphragms, can't tell for IUDs (immoral because no one knows for sure how they work). Many women take the pill for their health. What did you have in mind?

Pregnancy tells a h*ll of a toll on a woman's body and health with time, and with mutliple pregnancies.

So how is that being open to life? Might as well take up smoking as well. I do think we have to look at the whole spectrum.

What are you looking for?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.

During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period. You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:

No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.

Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.

Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually. And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.

I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers than the EO position, which basically ignores them and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.

1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?

1. Clarify and quote.2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here. At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers. Perhaps some of them were wrong on some of the particulars of the matter, but the spirit of what they taught, and their consensus is correct. We are in line with that. You are not.

The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively. It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.